MB Civic

To the Editor:

Re “Cease-Fire Talks Stall as Fighting Rages on 2 Fronts’’ (front page, July 27):

Against the wishes of the rest of the world, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice insists that there is no point to calls for a cease-fire unless the conditions are right to make it a lasting one.

So what if a cease-fire lasts only a day before fighting erupts again? Don’t those lives saved in one day mean anything? Would a temporary cease-fire create more lost lives in the future?

Enough with the cold calculus of realpolitik; stop the loss of human lives now.

Kate Somers
Princeton, N.J., July 27, 2006

•

To the Editor:

Prime Minister Fouad Siniora of Lebanon asks rhetorically, “Is the value of human life less in Lebanon than that of citizens elsewhere?’’ (front page, July 27).

This is a question he should ask of Iran and Syria, as well as of Hezbollah.

It is Iran, Syria and Hezbollah that deliberately emplace missiles next to women and children, in residential neighborhoods. These terrorists, not Israel, spend innocent human life as if it were inflated currency of little worth.

Dennis Flynn
Byfield, Mass., July 27, 2006

•

To the Editor:

The systematic dehumanization of the Arab people is evident when Israel targets Lebanon for collective punishment.

The Hezbollah terrorists have adopted the same logic of holding the Israeli people responsible for the actions of their government.

When Prime Minister Fouad Siniora asks, “Is the value of human life less in Lebanon than that of citizens elsewhere?,” the answer, devoid of diplomatic parlance, is yes, if you agree with the Israeli attacks.

Jahan Habib
Boston, July 27, 2006

•

To the Editor:

Why is there no outrage against Hezbollah or Hamas, only criticism of Israel? Israel never sought these conflicts.

It appears that terrorist organizations have special dispensation to bring death and destruction to any country without condemnation from the international community. The question is why.

What sad times for the world and humanity.

Linda Vaughn
Daytona Beach, Fla., July 27, 2006

•

To the Editor:

Nicholas D. Kristof (“In Lebanon, Echoes of Iraq,” column, July 25) uses the example of Israel’s restrained conduct toward Hezbollah from 2000 until two weeks ago to prove the wisdom of restraint.

But Israel’s restraint during this time allowed Hezbollah to arm itself to the teeth right along the Israel-Lebanon border, waiting for the appropriate excuse to rain down rockets on Israel’s towns and cities.

Since Israel didn’t seem to care, the international community didn’t put much effort into enforcing United Nations Resolution 1559 (which calls for the disarming of Hezbollah).

Now that Israel has put its foot down by responding strongly, the international community has followed, and there is a consensus that Hezbollah must be disarmed.

This would not have been possible if Israel had responded to this attack as it had to others.

Ben Bokser
Jerusalem, July 25, 2006

•

To the Editor:

Nicholas D. Kristof mentioned that Israel was not rewarded for its withdrawal from Gaza and Lebanon.

The reports from Gaza after the withdrawal leave little room for the idea of a reward.

The Israeli forces withdrew from Gaza and tightly shut the air, sea and land access to the strip. Goods perished at the “crossing points,” and the movement of humans occurred at a snail’s pace, when and if it occurred at all.

These restrictions resulted in a suffocating atmosphere, a de facto siege. What is there to reward?

Hana El Sahly
Houston, July 25, 2006